While a nationwide adoption of a uniform exam may not happen in the near future, it is certainly on the minds of those who are or hope to be in the legal profession.  In an August 2010 Bar Examiner article, Veryl Victoria Miles, the dean of Catholic University of America’s Law School, points out that a uniform exam means portable scores which allow for more cross-border movement in an economy where jobs are scarce.  The UBE would also guarantee that all test takers are evaluated on the same material and at the same level across states.

To date, several states have reported that they are contemplating the adoption of the UBE.  Almost a year ago, a USA Today article stated that bar officials in Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C. were considering the adoption of a national exam.  This past April, Missouri became the first state to announce that it would administer the UBE and North Dakota followed suit in June.

For those looking for more information about the UBE, the National Conference of Bar Examiners compiled a fact sheet with more information about the exam.

Monterey College of Law, which is a four-year evening J.D. program, is a suitable testing ground for the iPad pilot program given the fact that the median age of enrolled students is 38, many of whom hold full-time jobs.   The aim of dispensing iPads to current law students is to give them up to 700 additional study hours over the course of their J.D. studies, according to the President and Dean of the law school Mitchel Winick.  With access to an iPad while on-the-go, it is the administration’s hope that students can add an additional 30 to 45 minutes of studying each day.  Ultimately, success with the program would lead to improved performance in class and a stronger showing on the California bar exam.

By the time of yesterday’s press release, Winick reported that all 1Ls and roughly 70% of returning students opted to enroll in the program.  As classes have only been underway for a little over one week, Winick anticipates that many of the remaining students will sign up in several week’s time.

To learn more about the adoption of the iPad at Monterey College of Law, read the school’s press release.

Since 2005, an increasing number of Ohio law schools have been hosting what are referred to as “tailgates” or “bar-support lunches” for their alumni who are taking the Ohio Bar Examination.   According to a recent article in The Columbus Dispatch what began as a tradition for two law schools has now been adopted by eight of Ohio’s nine law schools in addition to the University of Northern Kentucky.  While offerings range from free massages to antacid tablets, the usual spread includes complimentary lunch and snacks.

This year, the majority of schools pitched food tents in the parking lot of the Veterans Memorial in Columbus, a testing site where approximately 1,200 JDs took the bar exam.  Three schools, however, rented rooms at the test site to host their catered lunches.  A friendly competition, of which no official record is kept from year to year, ensued among Ohio State University, University of Cincinnati and University of Toledo, the schools that setup inside Veterans Memorial.

Perhaps next year, the University of Dayton—the only missing Ohio law school—will join in the festivities.

One the three plaintiffs in the Maryland case, Michael Witver, a graduate of Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, had previously used the ZoomText program to assist him in reading the computer screen—he is partially blind.  Anne Blackfield and Timothy Elder depend on a program known as JAWS that speaks aloud the text on the screen and provides spoken instructions for navigating the screen.  All three have sued the NCBE for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The NCBE has agreed to supply blind test takers with human readers, audio CDs and additional time, in Enyart’s case, but has refused to allow a computer-based form of the traditionally paper-based examination.

Although these three law graduates are facing challenges when it comes to the NCBE-administered portion of the bar exam, the state of Maryland has agreed to allow them to use computer-based software for the state-specific section of the test.  Enyart, who is being represented by Daniel Goldstein, the same attorney presenting Blackfield, Elder and Witver’s case, will reappear in court at the end of this week to pursue her case against the NCBE.

Representatives from the American Bar Association and the National Conference of Bar Examiners have indicated that they support the plan recently adopted by Missouri. Erica Moeser, president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners stated, “The idea is to have lawyers moving across state borders with greater ease. That’s a huge benefit to new law graduates in these economically uncertain times.”

Missouri plans to begin administering the uniform exam in February. The exam will be different from the test currently given in that it will not include specific questions regarding state laws. Additionally, whereas the essay portion of the exam is currently given more weight, scores for the new exam will give equal weight to the multiple choice and essay portions. According to the officials charged with creating the exam, the new test will still be an accurate measure of the competency of hopeful lawyers, but will also offer recent graduates a wider range of career options after they’ve received a passing score.

Although the uniform bar exam will allow attorneys more freedoms across state borders, states will still retain a few freedoms of their own. For instance, states will be allowed to set their own passing grades for admission to the state bar, and can set limits on how long the uniform test score is valid. Such state freedom means that passing the uniform bar exam does not guarantee entry to another state’s bar.

As Moser explained, other professions have long ago begun offering a uniform exam. As she stated, “The idea has been kicking around for decades, and it’s finally gotten legs. This is the direction the profession should be heading.”

Though Missouri is the first state to adopt the uniform bar exam, Moser indicates that between 5 and 10 other states may follow suit in the next few years. North Dakota is considering implementing the exam next year, while Illinois is also in the midst of making a decision.

To get all of the details on the uniform bar exam recently adopted by the Missouri Supreme Court, click here.

One further interesting finding from the survey is that while pre-law students are confident of their own prospects, only 16 percent said they were likewise “very confident” that the majority of their classmates would find a similar position. Jeff Thomas, Kaplan’s director of pre-law programs, noted this discrepancy among the 330 who answered. “What’s interesting is the drop-off in confidence in their peers, which perhaps may just be an indication of the general competitive atmosphere that exists between pre-law students.”

The article also passed along another unique data point: Given the chance to submit a perfect 180 LSAT score, a perfect 4.0 GPA or a recommendation letter from a Supreme Court Justice in an application, 80 percent would pass along the LSAT score.

As explained in a recent article posted on Law.com, not only would a uniform exam grant lawyers more freedom in terms of choosing a career location, but, supporters argue, it would also improve the quality of bar exams, especially in states that currently do not have large test-development budgets.

Erica Moeser, President of the NCBE, has announced that ten states are positioned to give the uniform exam by 2011, though she has not specifically named these states. In addition to the ten states interested in using the test by 2011, another 22 states have expressed interest in implementing the uniform exam in coming years. Although some of the interested jurisdictions remain anonymous, representatives from Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri have confirmed that they are considering making the switch.

Although the interested states are moving ahead with the plan and are set to meet in Phoenix next month to discuss last minute details, there are still many who oppose the exam. Several key states, including New York, California and Florida, have so far declined to implement the exam. The most frequently cited concern is the fact that a uniform exam will focus on federal law and doctrine and will therefore not be indicative of a test taker’s proficiency with state laws. Others have expressed worries related to scheduling and scoring, and have also noted that a uniform exam will grant the NCBE a great deal of power.

Despite the fact that some states remain hesitant, the shift towards a uniform test will nonetheless create notable changes in legal education and the practice of law. Recent law school graduates, for example, may be able to take the bar exam in the same state as their program, and then move to a new location to begin a career without having to retake the test. Jerome Hafter, chair of the American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, noted that a portable bar exam score is part of a trend toward the nationalization of legal practice.

Additionally, the transition to a uniform exam would most likely mean a shift within law school curriculum, as schools could focus on the subject covered by the exam without feeling obligated to cover “niche” or state-related topics. Some states, including Pennsylvania, however, are reluctant to implement the uniform exam for this very reason, explaining that drawing attention away from state laws to focus more heavily on federal doctrine will negatively impact the public.

Though the first uniform exam will not be given until 2011, and despite the fact that several states still remain hesitant to implement a uniform test, the move towards such an exam has the potential to soon begin affecting law school applicants. Knowing that they have the freedom to transfer bar exam scores from state-to-state may impact candidates’ decisions when deciding on a law program to attend, and could also affect the curriculum at their target schools.